Is the Six Nations Bigger than the Tri Nations?

Discussion in 'The Clubhouse Bar' started by getofmeland, Mar 12, 2007.

  1. getofmeland

    getofmeland Guest

    Right this is not really an Article, but more of a discussion...

    I pose the question to all fans of Rugby, which is bigger in the rugby world, The Six Nations or the Tri Nations...

    So let the arguements begin.....

    I personally believe the Six Nations is bigger to the rugby world that what the Tri Nations is, the reasons I believe this is that it is far more competive than the Tri Nations, and also in recent years the Tri Nations has sold out completly to advertising. Also the over the last couple of years the six nations introduced a minor international team, and have encouraged them to carry on playing and now the Italian team are improving and could soon be a major force in International Rugby. The Tri Nations have resisted letting in a forth team as it wouldnt be profitable for them to do so...

    Well thats my opening arguement
  2. Forum Ad Advertisement

  3. O'Rothlain

    O'Rothlain Guest

    6 Nations. They have 3 more is that not considered bigger?
    Next question please.
  4. getofmeland

    getofmeland Guest

    In the Terms of Influence to World Rugby!!!
  5. O'Rothlain

    O'Rothlain Guest

    Yes, that too. Look what they've done for Italy.

  6. Dumbo

    Dumbo Guest

    6 Nations vs' Tri Nations based on influence to World Rugby...

    Interesting question, how about this Australia has won two world cups, NZ one, SA one.
    England has won one.

    Tri Nations teams = 4
    Six Nations teams = 1

    Now that's not my 'devinative' answer but leads to the following, the RWC has grown in stature since it started, the imposing teams have all been from the countries playing the Tri Nations.
    the influence these teams have had reaches local areas like the Pacfic Islands, Japan, Italy... the lists goes on.

    New Zealand, Australia and South Africa have defined the 'modern' game - defined the benchmark and attributes required to cut it in the modern game.

    I'd say that yup Tri Nations teams have more influence on World Rugby... in large thanks to the All Blacks.

    Also the 6 Nations has Wales as a member... for christ sake it's been a long time since Wales influenced world rugby, or Italy, or Scotland for that matter.
  7. O'Rothlain

    O'Rothlain Guest

    All of this nonsense coming from this:

    I honestly have to disagree. You south hemesphirians all claim that your rugby has set the benchmark, blah, blah, blah. I hate to actually say this, but who won the last world cup? England. What competition do they play in? Hmmm..the 6 Nations. So, by your theory, for possibly the last 8 years the northern hemispher has had more influence. Your influence ended before the 2003 world cup. I don't buy into it. New Zealand have got their stuff together right, performance, ect...but so did England in 2003. That doesn't prove anything about a these two competitions, though.
    Even though my first comment was a bit tounge in cheek, I think the fact that there are 3 extra teams in the northern hemisphere comp, does indeed make it a bigger deal. It gives a heavier showing of team performance, and truly tests the metals of the teams playing.
  8. Dumbo

    Dumbo Guest

    I disagree.
    The English indeed did win the World Cup in 2003, but in general Southern Hemisphere teams have one everything before and since.
    Since 2003 how have the English got on?
    The IRB rankings have normally had NZ, AU and RSA sitting within the first five rankings.
    Current rankings are;
    1 NEW ZEALAND 94.59
    2 FRANCE 85.66
    3 AUSTRALIA 85.55
    4 SOUTH AFRICA 84.71
    5 IRELAND 84.65

    But that’s digressing... the question is - 'Is the Six Nations Bigger than the Tri Nations' in regards to influence to World Rugby.
    If the teams listed in the Tri Nations have been listed in the top 5 teams for the past 10 years... then... remedial math’s mate, 1 and 1 makes 2.
    Then they are pretty much defining how the game is to be played, like it or not – it’s simple.

    I’ll put it another way, you will not find the All Blacks, Wallabies or the Springbok trying to replicate the game played by Wales, Italy or Scotland (credit is given to the other teams though).
    Most coaches instruct their players to replicate the best, this is ‘influence’ and that’s owned by the Tri Nations teams.

    Also how can three teams that are good playing three teams that are not really good be considered a true test?

    That's laughable.
  9. O'Rothlain

    O'Rothlain Guest

    No, it's what gives the 6 nations it's influence. Look at the progress of Italy this year. Maybe if you guys added Argentina, Japan and a collective Islanders team I would think you would have the same scope. What you see happening in Europe right now is diversification. I don't see that at all in the SH. Sure, you get your share of islanders, but they are citizens. Europe is sharing it's style and ideas with eachother. You guys just bash the crap out of eachother and move on.
  10. Dumbo

    Dumbo Guest

    Yup, thats right... we bash each other up, win and move on 'influencing' all others.


    Not taking the ****, can you explain this a bit further.
  11. An Tarbh

    An Tarbh Guest

    The same could have been said about the Springboks in 2003 who were shite in that Tri Nations yet they turned it around and won the following year. Same can be said of Wales, they were whitewashed in 2003 and 2 years later they won the grand slam, that shows the depth of the tournament. If you were to add Samoa, Tonga and Fiji to make it a SH Six Nations those teams would never have a chance of winning the tournament yet Italy now have a mathematical chance of taking the championship in only their 8th attempt. To me that shows that this tournament has stronger depth when the so called weakest team is in a position to win the thing.

    The format and geography of Europe helps make the Six Nations a better tournament, it's easier for fans to travel to away matches, the atmosphere is better and you usually get 3 quality games each round as opposed to one in the Tri Nations often in front of less than capacity crowds. Now granted the Scots only fill their ground because of away fans but for the All Blacks not to have sold out a Bledisloe Cup match is quite worrying indeed.
  12. Prestwick

    Prestwick Guest

    To be frank, not true.

    Firstly, the question is simple: Is the Six Nations bigger than the Tri Nations and not just "Is the Six Nations Bigger than the Tri Nations in regards to influence to World Rugby."

    If anything, teams like Australia and New Zealand have been influenced by the pacific rim because of the players they draft from Samoa, Fiji and the like and not the other way round!

    Japan will always be Japan. They have had links with individual southern hemisphere players like John Kirwan and a couple of Boks, but they have been more influenced by corporatism or the idea of leaving the running of the game to big multinational companies and their sports teams rather than any influence from the Super 14 or the so called big three. To be honest, that idea of running a game would strike terror into the hearts of SANZAR more than the idea of say, a free and open transfer market.

    Yes, it is true that the three down there have defined the modern professional game. But that was just over ten years ago. Now it is starting to look stale, it is SANZAR that is looking conservative and stuck in its ways now, refusing to move with the times with elementary things such as the concept that you can play for a team thousands of miles away and still be committed to your nation for example.

    The Six Nations though is bigger because it is more dynamic. Because all six Unions play each other either in club league competitions such as the Magners League or in center peice cup tournaments such as the Heinneiken cup, you do get a slow and gradual mix of differing national styles and ideas.

    This is facilitated by the transfer of players from one Union to another. You may see having your players play in a different country - even if it is that of a fellow Union playing in the same league - as a weakness, within the Six Nations it is seen a way of revitalising stale teams and it does influence the home grown players who rise up through the ranks.

    This in turn provides for a more dynamic and exciting Six Nations as players from all unions, tutored and influenced by many different national methods of playing, put on some excellent rugby.

    The Six Nations is bigger because it is so willing to listen to new ideas, new ways of playing and new ways of doing things. We are not as rigid and stuck in our ways as SANZAR and the Tri Nations.

    And when you look at what is on offer on the Tri Nations, you cannot honestly argue with any seriousness that three teams, playing each other three times each adds anything to what influence it has over world rugby. It might come as a shock to you down there but the emerging nations of Rugby are not falling over themselves to copy the Tri-Nations.

    And I disagree with the notion that Wales, Scotland and Italy are crap teams. Wales ran Australia ragged and drew them last year in the Autumn internationals. Italy themselves pushed Australia hard in that same period and Scotland came within a whisker of recording their first victory against the Springboks in their Summer tour of 2006.
  13. Gay-Guy

    Gay-Guy Guest

    I love the 6N nowadays more than the monotonous tri thingy. Yep

    When Italy beat France and especially England then it will be time to bring in another nation like Romania.

    The NH comp has more variety and its level is very good indeed.

    The tri nations popularity decreased when they increased the matches. Last year some games were not sold out in all countries and they even had a game in S.A in the middle of nowhere!
  14. Dumbo

    Dumbo Guest

    First of all good reply pretwick, always good to see anyone put forth their ideas clearly.
    Secondly sorry for the quote thing as I havn't got my head around how to do it yet.

    In answer to what you put forth...

    No, looking at what getofmeland wrote in his second comment the question is "Is the Six Nations Bigger than the Tri Nations in regards to influence to World Rugby"

    No, other way around, Australia and NZ has influenced the Pacific rim, mainly by introducing and encouraging the game in the Islands, players from the Islands when in NZ or Aus are influenced by the coaching staff for the club or team they play for.

    Thats true.

    Yes and No, they have rugby and they have corporations - they are two different things, corporations sponsor players, games and competitions and rugby's a game that's based around players, games and comps. Back to the original question... "Is the Six Nations Bigger than the Tri Nations in regards to influence to World Rugby"... I guess how I'm interpreting this is that the teams that make up the comps perform the influencing, where as I guess your saying it's the comp itself? If so then there's sort of no middle ground cause we are talking about different things.

    The last part is partly true, SANZARS only recent move was to increase the number of games. There is a reason behind keeping your players who will go on to play for their country to develop together, familiarity is a positive thing in this game... combinations over the years have done Tri Nations countries well.

    Um... NZ - Tri Nations, Super 14, Air New Zealand Cup, smaller leagues, SA similar (it's only Australia in this scenario that seem to not have it together) and Australia has a fair amount of players that where either born in NZ, or have played a fair bit of rugby of there. So, so what? that doesn’t make the Northern comp bigger or 'dynamic'.

    We still have a lot of players moving around, and yup Southern Hemisphere countries do have a draft. We are pretty happy though to have our players at home for the better parts of their careers, the players themselves are choosing not to go for lucrative offshore contracts till their careers are on the decline - more often than not because of the quality of the competition in the SH countries (in NZ not many that go over get the nod to play in the national squad again, why? the coaches are in NZ, the resources are in NZ).

    And this is different to the Tri Nations?

    Ummm??? hold on what the hell do you think coaches do? SANZAR officials don't tell players how to play, seriously they don't. New ideas, new ways of playing? I'd be looking further down south to find that. To us Northern Hemisphere rugby always looks stale. Then again at times so can Australia, South Africa and the odd one NZ can to. But for mine, 'stale' belongs to the coaches in the NH.

    That's fair, but again we are possibly not talking about the same point (the way the question was put forth is a bit confusing) and I might have the wrong end of the stick. I guess my point is the Tri Nations is made up of NZ, Aus and SA... emerging nations may not be looking to start a tri nations but they are definitely influenced by the players that play the comp more than any other. Players like Carter and McKaw are the two most influential players in the world today and they play in what comp?.

    Can you point out where I used the word 'crap'.
  15. Prestwick

    Prestwick Guest

    Mate, the companies run the teams, not sponsor them. All the big corporates like Yamaha, Sanyo, Toyota, etc have whole departments where they manage their various sports teams. Even the foreign multinationals like Coca-cola or IBM have their own teams in Japan competing in diveball, rugby, etc.

    The TOP LEAGUE in Japan is run by the corporations, not by the Union. It is something that would make Unions like the RFU or the NZRFU run in terror as the Union has very, very little control and is normally packed full of cronies from the Diet (the Japanese Parliament). The current president of the JRFU for example is an ex-Prime Minister.

    The only sport which hasn't fallen completely to corporatism in Japan is baseball.

    It is where you dismissed Wales, Scotland and Italy where actually they have contributed a lot to the vitality and variety of the European leagues. Just ask clubs from Munster to the Southwest of France!
  16. Further to the debate I think the current dodgy Tri-Nations format is a fast lane to stagnation...If Argentina are admitted then they'll have a lot more influence on the RFU.
  17. O'Rothlain

    O'Rothlain Guest

    I still press forward that the numbers do count for something. 6 versus 3.
    Let's look at population:

    6 Nations
    Ireland (Republic, N.I. will be included in the UK) - 4,062,235
    UK - 60,609,153
    France - 62,752,136
    Italy - 58,133,509
    Total = 185,557,033

    Australia - 20,264,082
    New Zealand - 4,076,140
    South Africa - 44,187,637
    Total = 68,527,859

    This means there are 117,029,174 more people directly influenced by the 6 Nations. That's a large number, to state the obvious. This is not taking into context the exposure of peoples outside of the actual nations involved.
    *all info taken from
  18. Prestwick

    Prestwick Guest

    To answer more points posted before:

    They are all provincial competitions, not major, transnational cups which seek to challenge teams to innovate and develop in order to beat international competition. In the NH, we don't focus on piddly national cups such as the Anglo-Welsh cup or the crappy little provincial cups that exist in Scotland or Ireland (although they do provoke a lot of pride and passion). We focus on the big, center peice tournaments that make a difference and influence teams and nations. As such, I don't really have much time for the Currie Cup and the Air New Zealand cup because the Super 14 has devalued them that much.

    A thriving transfer market is vastly different to a draft.

    It serves to show the gulf of understanding between north and south over such issues and it shows the distance yet to go before the SH emerges from its stagnant and out of date views on such matters. Players are not moving around freely between teams and between nations unless they are either pushed out to the NH or are exiled because they took a chance to play in a different environment.

    There is no thriving transfer market between teams and between nations within the Super 14 or the Tri Nations. The reasons for this are barriers to entry and irrational restrictions on labour movement between nations and regions. Fact.

    The idea of SH players coming to the north to play out their final days is now facing its twilight. It had its heyday in the late 1990s and early 2000s where clubs fell over themselves to buy loads of out of date stars from the South to cover gaps caused by national duty. However invariably the investment was either too great due to the salary cap and for most part were wastes of money as they only lasted a few years before eventual retirement. Teams like Bristol got really stung by this and are now picking closer to home and saving lots of money and getting the same quality as a result. Bristol's front row for example is manned mainly by a motley crew of old but very experienced English and British forwards who can do the same job just as well as any SH star close to retirement, but for the fraction of the cost.

    No, the idea that a SH star can look to the north as a good pension fund is well and truly gone and now stars in their prime are now being offered the stark choice: either come up here and get the cash or stay down there with the sheep and your identi-kit teams. This is the choice that Chris Jack is facing at the moment, but do not believe what the nay sayers tell you, it is possible to have your cake (of playing in club rugby in the North) and eat it (play for your country).

    The problem is that the Unions in the south have failed to see this yet and are stubborn to change. The change-makers are now the dinosaurs, eager to live on in their fantasy world while the meteor of economic reality homes in on their garden of Eden, or should I say, Bay of Plenty.

    This is also one reason why you'll rarely see any talent from say Argentina or the NH come to the Super 14 to play or to manage, no matter how excellent they are. The SH is so determined to defend its little system and values, that by doing so, they are merely ensuring the destruction of such a system through Rhodesian style stagnation through lack of investment and innovation.

    Yes and its easy to point out why. None of the teams trade players in a free and open transfer market and thus all 14 teams are packed full of their own countrymen and are mainly staffed by their own countrymen. The teams may play each other in the Super 14, but they still stick rigidly to their own national methods dictated by their own agendas and not by what wins matches.

    I referred to SANZAR over the bigger, more strategic decisions such as transfers, structuring of tournaments and the like.

    The NH is pragmatic, innovative and can claim the mantle of "change" thanks to NH coaches such as Phillipe Saint Andre, Dean Ryan, Dean Richards, Richard Hill, Pierre Berbitzier. And I could go on and on. Most of these men have (when given the budget) gone out and have formed the most dynamic and innovative squads I have seen. Some in the case of Ryan, Richards and Andre have some of the most talented and exciting backlines to be seen anywhere in the world while others like Hill have also been innovative in the practice on buying on form and not on star appeal.

    The rugby scene in the NH has never been so vibrant and alive with energy. Players are willing to travel across a continent to join teams who they feel they will play best with while at the same time making themselves available for national duty. When you look south and you see their slavish devotion to closing off their leagues and teams from letting players leave to go abroad or from allowing foreigners to enter, you can't help but smirk when you realise that they actually take such fruitcake ideas seriously.

    No, we may not win world cups every time, but we have a system that will last the test of time. It is financially viable and it is exciting and that is what I love about NH rugby.
  19. Gulli

    Gulli Guest

    in terms of positive influence on international teams in and around the tournaments i think the 6N is bigger, look at how much italy have improved in the last 7 or so years, whereas in the SH because you are limited to only three teams, teams like fiji, samoa etc. don't get as much chance to play 'big teams' and that is the only way to improve, no small team will improve if it is playing teams that are below them, you have to play better teams to improve.
    If the tri nations were to let in argentina, fiji, samoa etc. then world rugby would gradually improve, but because they don't and the 6N does, we have more influence.
  20. As much as I agree that There are probably more fans etc. for the six nations, we shouldn't be looking at it in terms of total population. See because who knows how many of those 20 million aussies are rugby league or aussie football supporters, and similarly how many people in Italy for example actually care about rugby enough to leave roundball alone for a bit? Although there's a point to be made, it's the wrong figures to prove it. as for the rest, I guess as an outsider I get more of a feeling of excitement when the 6N comes around, there's so much national pride associated with the tournament, and fans are strongly opinionated about their teams and care a lot about what's going on. Kind of reminds me of the habs fans here in montreal, each claiming they can do a better job then the current guy getting paid x million a year to do his job. Regardless, it seems that the Tri Nations generally has fewer upsets, fewer countries involved and less interest. I have no doubt that level of rugby played is higher down there simply because the ABs are raping the other nations, and as mentioned before the three competing nations are regularly around the top 5 in the world rankings. In terms of attracting new people to the game however, I'd say that the atmosphere provided by the 6N is much more inviting than the 3N.
  21. Dumbo

    Dumbo Guest

    2.5 quality posts there guys, good answer from Prestwick, Gulli gets half a point and a good outside answer from Canadian_Rugby_Guy.

    Think we are still looking at the 'question' completly differant BUT thas ok.
    Interesting to see how things are seen in the NH.

    So there you go. NH is where it's at (unless you live in NZ, SA, Aus or the Pacific Islands).
Enjoyed this thread? Register to post your reply - click here!

Share This Page